User talk:Tkbrett/Archive 1

Changes on Minos
Apologies if this is not the right place for this but I have never tried to email a user personally. I tried to make some improvements on the Minos dialogue but I saw they were reverted. I think they should be reinserted so could we please discuss in the talk page? Thank you.
 * No worries. I adjusted the referencing so it was consistent with the rest of the page. I also removed a line from the lead that mentioned it being seen as a "preamble to Plato's Laws." Upon reflection, I suppose it could warrant a mention, so if you'd like to put it back in that's fine with me. It might be better suited to the second paragraph, rather than the first though. You also won't need a citation since it's already cited in the body of the article. Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing all this. When I spoke about the references, I meant that in the other articles across Wikipedia on Platonic dialogues, there is a parenthesis with the section inside, like (345b) not like this a link. Would you be ok if I made the reference on Minos consistent with all the rest of the articles on Wikipedia?

Ogonowski source
If you believe it should be removed, you should also remove it from the Flight 11 page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.82 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hemingway/"committed suicide"
I just had an edit conflict when we both were preparing edits to the Ernest Hemingway talk page. Somehow my edit deleted yours, so I made another edit to restore yours. Sorry—I think I misused a gadget unfamiliar to me. Neonorange (Phil) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Tkbrett (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions on Books
Hi Tkbrett, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Books. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Every little helps
I stuck that disambiguation needed tag on "Jaws" in Mark Proksch because I couldn't tell if the mention was to the film or to the James Bond character or even to something else. Good work in solving the problem!

The next time you see me may be in a plaintive cry for help in WP:WikiProject Philosophy about some ambiguous link or other. As someone once said (I paraphrase), I know enough to know when I don't know the answer. Narky Blert (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! Tkbrett (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Red means hot, blue means cold

 * Always nice to know there's someone else out there who's down for taking rapidly-changing matters slowly, so cheers to patience, buddy! But in my experience, the red flag of a ping signals a question, challenge, disagreement or reversion and makes me hulk up a bit. When I was young and offline, that meant bad news for others, but online and old, it's just pointless beating on my own now-tender heart and triggers nothing more harmful than three paragraphs of blown-off steam (my shirts don't even rip anymore).
 * So if we happen to agree on something again (and it's not too much trouble), please click the Thank button instead. That makes a clearly refreshing colour on a cantankerously humid summer night which takes me back to cherished childhood memories of that scene from The Simpsons of that scene from Prince of Tides.
 * Obviously, there are more important things on Wikipedia than whether one editor recalls broadcast television or has a heart attack. And at the end of the day, the colours you fly are your choice, not mine or Aunt Selma's. But I don't think I'm the only one who sees red at the sight of red, and if you unwittingly kill too many of us with your kindness, the whole site could tip toward those who think red means chill instead, potentially spelling the end of workplace balance and chaos forever. So just consider it, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, July 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't even thought of it. I've become a lot more involved in the community in the last little while, though I've mostly kept to myself working on Canadian art pages that no one else edits. As a result I'm not really up to speed on a lot of the table manners of Wikipedia. I'll keep your post in mind from now on though! I appreciate the guidance. From a one Simpsons fan to another, Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 05:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, I've never seen this complaint raised by anyone toward anyone else here before. I think you and I might literally be the only people on Earth actively aware of the problem. Whether you remember or I forget, all is well! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, July 26, 2018 (UTC)

Tom Thomson
Hi Tkbrett. I hadn't noticed your immense work on Tom Thomson, though I noticed your edits to some of the paintings, over time. Great job!

Having looked at how large the Thomson article is now ... I think it's getting too long. There is a guideline for article size at Article size, and some tools for measuring size. One tool says it's about 11,700 readable words now. This is 3,200 words larger than Leonardo da Vinci, as a comparison. This is not a criticism, just a comment. (I know that an article this long would be rejected at WP:FAC... if that happened to be a goal of yours.) There is always the option to spin off details into themed sub-topic articles, as Splitting details. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks, I really appreciate your message! I'm fairly new to editing—I've only really been doing it seriously for the last year-or-so—so I'm not too well versed with the ins-and-outs of the standards. It's always helpful when there's someone to point things out. I didn't set out to do this originally, but in the course of editing the Tom Thomson page the goal has slowly morphed into bringing it to Featured Article status. I've been basing the format of the article on that of the Vincent van Gogh page (if you compare, you can see a lot of similarities there). With Vincent, a lot of the articles subsections have their own articles (sub-topics, like you mentioned), but I wasn't sure how acceptable that would be with Thomson. I've been hesitant to make new articles if I'm not sure they'd meet the notability requirements, though I suppose it's difficult to think of a Canadian painter more deserving of several pages than Thomson. Out of curiosity, where do you think some sub-topics could be created? Perhaps a page for the Death of Tom Thomson? (tangent: to be honest, this is what I care about least, even though some people seem to be so obsessed—the section on Death conspiracy theories has suffered for this and is the worst section of the current article b/c I find it difficult to put much effort into it). Besides that, I'm not sure where else to draw a line.
 * One other question: how do you measure the number of readable words? I couldn't find that information on how to do that at Article size. Cheers,  Tkbrett  (✉) 03:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that as long as you have references to support the chosen sub-topic, then anything goes. Sub-topics (in general) could be "early life of" or "artistic themes of" or "later career" or "legacy of", and yes, "death of". (For example, there was once an editor deeply into Alberta premiers; if John Edward Brownlee can have three or four sub-articles, so can Thomson!) It's a tricky business, because one has to leave a summary of the new sub-article in the main article. I can't give an opinion on what would be suitable here, because I'm not familiar enough with the literature. I think that when reaching length limits, one just as much has to make decisions about which details not to include. Not being familiar, for example, is Thomson's photography important enough to include at all, beyond a mention? I'm not asking--just things like that. If you want wider feedback on the article, you can submit it to WP:Peer review. No guarantees on how much feedback.


 * I also noticed that the citation system you use isn't deployed quite right. All the blue links in the footnotes (using that method) are supposed to take the reader to the full book citation lower down (which will appear highlighted in light blue), but it's not working. I'm not familiar with it, but you can see a working example in the notes at Bengal famine of 1943. One of the relevant templates is harvnb


 * (Off topic: I chose one date format for Thomson based on what I consider the Canadian date format, but if you want it reversed, as you're the main author and given that Canadian date formats are arguable, I can reverse it. All I know is I wrote "March 1, 19xx" on schoolwork. Didn't everyone? :-) )


 * To get a word count (which I believe means "readable" prose, not including references and templates, etc.), I used, section "Prose". There is also a tool that provides same without leaving the site; you add it to your javascript page as per User:Dr pda/prosesize. Outriggr (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. In this case I may be putting too much detail in some sections of his biography, so maybe splits could be in order there—I definitely have enough reference material to warrant it in some areas. On Article size, I noticed WP:HASTE where it mentions that a split doesn't have to be made immediately. I think before I proceed with splitting, I'll want to finish up what I had planned on doing since I'm very nearly where I was hoping to be. I've been using several print sources and have essentially used them all up, save half a chapter covering Thomson in 1916–17 as well as a small chapter on his artistic methods. Once I'm done with those, I'll begin looking more into Splitting, as well as WP:Peer review like you mentioned!


 * I was wondering why the citation format wasn't quite working. Looks like I'm missing |ref=harv tags on my source list. That will be fun to go through.


 * I think in Canada it's technically d/m/y, but no one seems to be very consistent about it. The only sticking point for me would be using Canadian English, which mostly means spelling it as "colour." It only seems fair given that he is Canada's most famous artist, plus every source written about him uses "colour" (they were all written and published in Canada).


 * Is there anywhere that I can find more excited users to help out with the editing process? I guess I could post in WP:VISUALARTS and WP:CANADA to see if I can generate any buzz. Working on some of the pages for Shakespeare's sonnets, it seemed like there was an unending supply of academics with a gigantic library willing to come to the rescue. The worry I have with Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven is that there are no such experts. I've expanded my personal library quite a bit recently and have been using it to improve these pages, but it doesn't seem like anyone else has been giving them much love in these last few years. My hope is that those hidden experts are out there, but if not, everyone will be stuck with me.  Tkbrett  (✉) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your last paragraph, in brief, not really. You've made a peer review request and that's about as good as it gets. You can certainly post at the visual arts wikiproject, and there are a number of us active in that area, but with different niches. Most will see the peer review request, likely. No, I wouldn't expect anything resembling an expert to appear—like it or not, you're the expert now! Outriggr (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Artistic development of Tom Thomson) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Artistic development of Tom Thomson, Tkbrett!

Wikipedia editor Vexations just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks!"

To reply, leave a comment on Vexations's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Vexations (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Algonquin Provincial Park
Should the incidents be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.71.225 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Content should only be added if it can be cited by a reliable source. Maybe have a quick review of Citing sources before you put anything else up.  Tkbrett  (✉) 19:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again
Hi Tkbrett. Got your message. I'd like to stay out of that, but I appreciate you asking. I think you can get disinterested opinions at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or External links/Noticeboard. And of course, your analysis is correct.

I believe you have Thomson at GA? My opinion is that you could probably skip it and try FA directly, but I realize we all have preferences. I only say so because, even if you don't have experience with the review processes(?), you are a very thorough writer and are also aware of how to dot the i's, etc., so a FAC seems perfectly achievable! Regards, Outriggr (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! I'll try posting on the External links notice board. Hopefully they feel similarly.
 * I went ahead and changed the GA nomination into a FAC. Seems like people respond to the latter more promptly anyway, so hopefully it works! Thanks.  Tkbrett  (✉) 01:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Great! (Yes, Good Article nominations commonly sit for months, I believe.)


 * One piece of feedback: prose reviewers at FAC dislike, possibly to the point of irrationality, verb formations with "would". I see 76 uses in the article. Now, the question becomes, what does each example--such as "Thomson would also regularly go on walks with Dr. William Brodie"--lose by the change to the simpler "Thomson regularly went on walks with Dr. William Brodie". I suppose when emphasizing the future, a future that might become the 'present' later in the article, the "would" is useful; but in other cases, it is perceived (at FAC) as a false heightening of language that conveys nothing extra. I'm sure there is a nuanced conversation in linguistics and semantics to be had on this topic, but it does not occur at FAC. They don't like 'em. :-) Outriggr (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Prose is definitely what I was dreading most going into this review since I wouldn't consider myself much of a writer... I appreciate the pointers. I've gone through and changed all the instances I noticed that seemed to warrant a change.  Tkbrett  (✉) 02:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries. Your writing seems fine to me, with a good intuition for the "Wikipedia voice". That doesn't mean that there won't be various suggestions for wording (I'm sure you've looked at other FACs), because there always is. That is essentially what FAC is, at least in some people's opinions. It's partly why I supported a proposed change to FAC that would examine how sources are used first, before getting into writing niggles.


 * I came here to bring up another manual-of-style compliance item with you, to get ahead of that particular niggling. Are you familiar with the "logical quotation" policy? In short, stuff like a respiratory issue variously described as "weak lungs" or "inflammatory rheumatism." needs to be a respiratory issue variously described as "weak lungs" or "inflammatory rheumatism". Periods only stay inside the quotation mark if you are quoting the end of a sentence (or something; that bit I've never understood; if one quotes a long phrase that happens to be the end of a sentence in the original text, but isn't itself a quote of a full sentence, well I don't know what the exception proves in that case, if indeed it is an exception; a phrase that happens to be the end of a sentence has no more standing than any other phrase, IMO). Again, I only bring it up because someone else will.


 * The last time I offered my "value-added advice" (sarcasm) to a FAC newbie, I ended up feeling like I had said too much, or opined too much, and for other but possibly related reasons the editor and I ended on a down note. So if you would prefer I leave you to experience FAC in all its glory, without me providing any small "tips" that I think of, that's fine! (I don't intend to be involved in the FAC, though in my "wheelhouse".) It's only because I imagine the FAC experience coming off as somewhat asinine to the average person that I end up in this position. (You see, there I go again!!) (I did achieve a featured article in another life, ten years ago.)


 * That reminds me, I had a question about Thomson for you. I am curious as to the standing of sketches and studies versus "showpiece finished works" in Thomson's catalog. My sense is that a good portion of the paintings are on panel/paperboard? Do his "sketches and studies" have a similar status in his catalog to larger canvas works? I hope you can tell what I'm getting at. Even as I click through the article's images now, I see there are more canvases than I thought. Would it be a quite small proportion of his work that is larger than say a couple of feet wide? Thanks. Outriggr (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It was always drilled into my head in university to use the American style rather than the the "logical" quotation (I don't put the quotation marks there unintentionally). It actually drives me nuts when I see the latter. I just find it looks so disorganized when punctuation ventures outside of the quotation marks. I didn't realize Wiki had a preference for it... Ah well, I guess I'll have to get over myself. I really do appreciate the value-added advice you're providing (no quotation marks there!). I'd like to get ahead of the curve here and get the page in tip-top shape ASAP so the review can go more smoothly.

As far as Thomson's sketches go, you can really divide his art into two sections: the sketches (typically 8½ × 10½ in., oil on wood panel) and the larger works on canvas. There are around 400 of the former and around 50 of the latter. I've written about this on the new artistic development page and it's definitely one of the most interesting things about his work. Nearly all of the sketches were done en plein air while the canvas works were derived from the sketches later on in the comfort of his studio. Comparing the two, you see the intensity and passion of the sketches contrasted against the structure of the canvases. For example, Autumn's Garland at right here. It's funny because I think more people would recognize the finished canvas work, but I personally find the sketch to be much more invigorating—you get a greater feel of what Thomson saw and felt as he stood in the autumn forest, quickly slapping paint onto his small wood panel. The canvas work feels very stagey to me. That's generally how things go though: the public at large remembers the big works while the smaller works share a greater intimacy. The Jack Pine and (to a lesser extent) The West Wind are the two Thomson paintings that have transcended Canadian art to become fixtures of Canadian culture. Even if everyone else isn't aware, a lot of the Thomson experts find more value in his collection of sketches than in his larger canvas works, and that's something I can agree with.  Tkbrett  (✉) 08:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, thanks. It's hard to tell from reproductions on a screen what exactly one thinks of things, something that I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with as I delve into 19th century American landscape. Even the drastic color differences between images of the same work (pushed toward green/blue or yellow/red) change the character so much.
 * I guess I'm one of those who prefers the canvas, here, based on what I imagine from the thumbnail. The sketches are sometimes too planar for me, as in very aware I'm looking at a support. And Thomson's sense of design/line carries through so uniquely to the more composed canvas. That design sense seems unique to him in all of painting. (The full image is a disappointment, and I can't believe National Gallery has no image at all! This is a case where a good scan from a book might be an improvement.) Thanks again, Outriggr (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think your follow-on LQ edit is unnecessary. My understanding is that when you are quoting a full sentence (or more), as in the ones I didn't touch, then the period can remain inside the quote. Outriggr (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. I should read a little more carefully next time! Thanks  Tkbrett  (✉) 03:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As for your preference of the canvas over the sketch, I think it's certainly understandable here. There are other sketches that are much more effective at achieving a kind of depth, allowing you to fall right in (Black Spruce in Autumn and Sunset, Algonquin Park are striking examples of this). I think the thing that drew me most to Thomson was the way that his art often teeters between figurative art and abstraction. The Sketch for Autumn's Garland is one that leans much more towards abstraction, while he reins it in with the final canvas.
 * The National Gallery not having any high resolution images of their paintings has been vexing—I don't understand why they haven't gotten around to it. I completely understand what you mean when you say that it's hard to judge from the reproductions on screen: I was not terribly fond of Northern River; Pine Island, Georgian Bay or Spring Ice until I saw them in person. The reproductions of the first two are too dark, while with Spring Ice there's something strange about the overall tone. Another reason to bug the NGC for good images!  Tkbrett  (✉) 04:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Tkbrett, your not to know this as a newcomer (and I agree with Outriggr that you properly by-passed GA), but those "done" tick marks tend to annoy people at FAC, and rather scream neeub. Friendly advice - don't use them any more, even remove the ones you have put there - people will take you more seriously. Anyway was a pleasure reading the page. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I went in and took them out: thanks for the heads up! Also thank you for the kind words and for taking the time to edit and review it. It means a lot.  Tkbrett  (✉) 01:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Gothic boxwood miniature
If I was to nominate this, would you mind taking a look. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the material but I'll definitely give the article a read and post any comments I have! Do you want me to look through it now or wait until it's up for FAC?  Tkbrett  (✉) 01:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its there. Would appreciate your input. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom
Many congratulations on the wholly-deserved promotion. It is a stunning piece of work. I very much look forward to your next. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your note, as well as for your help during the nomination process. Cheers!  Tkbrett  (✉) 02:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too. And thank you for your patience during the water torture! SarahSV (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it helped things turn out for the best, so I owe you a big "Thank you"!  Tkbrett  (✉) 03:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons

 * To you as well, ! Thanks for all the help this year.  Tkbrett  (✉) 16:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Tom Thomson TFA
Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 16, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is very exciting! Thank you!  Tkbrett  (✉) 03:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!
A beautiful TFA, in every sense. Many congratulations. The first is quite a buzz, isn't it. Here's to many more! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I’m currently on the lookout for that next spark...  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very nice message!  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A year ago, you were recipient no. 2162 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Flight 11 article
I have been trying to remove a false bit of information from the Flight 11 article; the supposed myth that one of the pilots pressed the radio so that controllers could hear Atta’s voice. Unfortunately, I was the one who put it on this article all those years ago, as I wanted to keep the myth of some of the heroism of 9/11, especially the flight crew. Flight 11’s pilot’s didn’t keep an open mic so that the hijacker’s voice could be heard. From what I have gathered, that was just early news articles misinterpreting why hijacker pilot Atta mistakenly transmitted to ATC when telling the passengers to stay in their seats. I’m not impeaching or downplaying the bravery of the Flight 11 crew, but that doesn’t seems to have been what happened. Regardless, I’m sure the pilots tried to fight back, but it would have been over quickly. We never know if they were killed or incapacitated, but we hope it was over quick. These sources must be treated with a great deal of caution and we should instead rely on primary sources of information as often as we possibly can. If this cautionary advice is not acted upon, it is quite possible for well-meaning researchers to expend a great deal of time and energy discussing the fine points of historical events that never occurred in the first place.